CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Harden
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, safer medicines arrangements and appropriate risk plans, although some improvements were made during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its rating carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems were not always effective. Inspectors found weaknesses in medicines audits, recruitment records and the detail and person-centred nature of some care plans.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Pegasus Care – Harden is rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind support, but the home's leadership systems still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. One inspector visited on 14 and 21 March 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a social care professional, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home supported four people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices, take part in activities and manage their medicines. There were enough staff to meet people's needs.
The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Well-led remained Requires Improvement because some audits, recruitment records and care plans were not strong or detailed enough. The provider took some immediate action and had an improvement plan.
Safe medicines support
Earlier concerns about medicine storage and records had been addressed. Staff were trained and people and relatives said medicines were given when needed.
“At this inspection we found these issues had been addressed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness. Staff respected privacy and dignity and understood people's individual communication needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found enough staff, including for one-to-one and two-to-one support. Staff had the skills and knowledge needed to support people.
“People were supported by enough staff. This included for one-to-one and two-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits when they wanted.” from the report
Support for choice and independence
Staff built on people's strengths and supported them to take part in activities and follow their interests in the local area.
“Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a meaningful everyday life.” from the report
Involvement and feedback
People, relatives and staff were asked for their views. Inspectors saw people being involved in daily choices and communication supported in different ways.
“The provider sought feedback from people and those important to them and used the feedback to develop the service.” from the report
Management audits
needs fixingMedicines audits had improved but were still not strong enough to identify every shortfall. This was part of the reason the well-led rating remained Requires Improvement.
“At this inspection, although improvements had been made, further improvements were required to strengthen these audits and identify any shortfalls.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff files had gaps in employment history and other inaccurate information. The provider addressed the issues during the inspection and updated its recruitment policy.
“We found not all information had been obtained before some staff had been employed.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome electronic care plans were not fully person centred and did not describe everyone's goals and aspirations in enough detail. An action plan was put in place.
“We found in some areas these were not always person centred, and not everyone's care plan contained detailed information about their goals and aspirations.” from the report
Wear and tear
minorInspectors saw some wear and tear around the home. An action plan was in place to address it.
“We observed some wear and tear around the home. An action plan was in place to address these.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines audits, and how do you now check that shortfalls are identified?
- 02How do you check employment histories and other recruitment information before staff start work?
- 03Have all care plans been updated to include each person's goals, aspirations and preferred support?
- 04What work has been completed to address the wear and tear identified around the home?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the last comprehensive inspection, and have those areas been reviewed since?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Pegasus Care – Harden: inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 review.
The inspection took place on 16 February 2022. It was announced and focused on infection prevention and control, including the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, managing visitors, supporting testing and maintaining hygiene. People were also supported to keep in touch with family and continue community and social activities.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including updated policies and extra monitoring.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Protective equipment
PPE was available for staff and visitors, with several places around the home to put it on and remove it safely.
“Supplies of Personal protective equipment (PPE) were in place for staff and visitors.” from the report
Communication
Staff had systems to keep up to date with government guidance.
“Effective communication systems were in place to ensure staff were kept up to date with the latest government guidance.” from the report
Contact and activities
People were supported to access the community, continue activities and maintain contact with family and friends.
“People were supported to safely access the community and continued to enjoy their learning and social activities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and have they affected people's support?
- 02What PPE, testing and cleaning arrangements are currently in place for staff, visitors and people living here?
- 03How do you currently manage visits from family and professional visitors?
- 04How will you support my relative to continue community access, learning and social activities?
- 05How do you check that staff are following the infection-control policy?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Harden
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 July 2018.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Walsall
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,200 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.